- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented
The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were "unduly burdensome" within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the Court considered that the defendants had not provided a sufficient benchmark for assessing whether the alleged duration of recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica was excessive. At the same time, the Court noted that the duration of enforcement proceedings may still be a relevant factor when assessing concerns about the future recoverability of costs.
Security for costs was nevertheless ordered because the claimant's own financial situation gave rise to legitimate concern, and the amount was set at EUR 600,000
The Court made clear that the relevant assessment concerns the financial position of the claimant itself, not that of non-party group companies. It also held that, when setting the amount of security, the likely costs of a counterclaim for revocation may be taken into account where that counterclaim is a defensive response to the infringement action. Although the provisional ceiling for recoverable costs was set at EUR 1.2 million, the Court exercised its discretion to order security of 50% of that amount, i.e. EUR 600,000.
2 Division
Brussels Local Division
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_1357/2025
UPC_CFI_629/2026
4 Type of proceedings
Infringement action; request for security for costs under R. 158 RoP
5 Parties
Applicants for security / defendants in the infringement action:
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, Eurosilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics Italy S.r.l., GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, and Romed N.V.
Respondent to the security request / claimant in the infringement action:
Establishment Labs S.A.
6 Patent(s)
EP 3 107 487 B1
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69(4) UPCA
R. 158.1 RoP
R. 175.2 RoP
UPC_CFl_1357-2025_GC Aesthetics v Establishment LABS
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
